Talk:Aztecs/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll have a go at this. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]It's good to see a mature and well-structured article on a major topic.
- Excellent, thanks! I am ready and on the job with citation requests etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Good show. I'll keep on checking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There are however around 20still some paragraphs that need citing. I have marked these with cn tags. I'm not sure if Townsend 2009 covers all the long para at the head of Imperial expansion.
Some other paragraphs do have a citation somewhere (including at the end in a few cases) but where it is unclear whether the citation genuinely covers the whole paragraph: for instance, sometimes the text is formatted with linebreaks after sentences which then appear as a single (run-on) paragraph: it would be helpful if you could check this please and add citations as necessary.
There are a couple of page needed tags.
- I have added passim to the two remaining page needed tags, since the statement they support is so general that it is really the main argument of the book, and not citable to a specific page number.
The "References" by Berdan 1982, Berdan 1996, Carrasco 1982, and Miller & Taube 1993 are not linked. Either they are unused (and are Further reading not References) or a link is missing.
- I have also cited Miller and Taube. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have gained another page needed tag: ref 130 "Natividad Gutierrez. Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities: Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State. U of Nebraska Press, 1999[page needed]" has been added, not by me.
- Yeah, I know, I added that because I know she has a really good discussion of the national emblem but I don't have the book right now, and google books doesnt give page numbers. But the fact is cited already to other works, so maybe I can remove it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I'll comment it out for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, I added that because I know she has a really good discussion of the national emblem but I don't have the book right now, and google books doesnt give page numbers. But the fact is cited already to other works, so maybe I can remove it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Lockhart 1991 is now unused.
Extended content
|
---|
|
- How are we in the review process? Which are the things that need to be done for the review to progress? My next idea is to expand the colonial period section, but I haven't had the time to get started - hopefully tomorrow I will. I am pretty far with standardization of the references systemt to harvard shortrefs. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- We need to clear all the items listed above. Whenever you're ready, just say "Done" or "Deleted" or "Cited" or some such under the relevant item to let me know that item is ready, and I'll strike it if I'm satisfied. When they're all struck, you'll have a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
Many paragraphs are too long & should be split - eg the 3rd in lead. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Given the balance of opinion here and the fact it's a guideline, I intend to take no further action on this item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC) |
Summary
[edit]I'm now satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria, and I hope that the contributors are pleased with the result. I hope, too, that people will find time to review one or two of the articles in the GAN queue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, many thanks! I thought it would take a while longer. I am very happy that we improved the article as much as we did during the course of the review. Thanks again for your time and effort here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Has this GA been correctly promoted? I only ask because there is no icon on the article and there does not seem to be a link to the GA review on the article's talk page. (I'm just checking because Maunus has claimed points for it in the WikiCup.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, don't know what happened to the icon. Will fix it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Has this GA been correctly promoted? I only ask because there is no icon on the article and there does not seem to be a link to the GA review on the article's talk page. (I'm just checking because Maunus has claimed points for it in the WikiCup.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, many thanks! I thought it would take a while longer. I am very happy that we improved the article as much as we did during the course of the review. Thanks again for your time and effort here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)